Talk:County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey) was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
October 25, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject U.S. Roads (Rated Redirect-class, Low-importance)
U.S. Roads WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Redirect page Redirect  This article has been rated as Redirect-Class on the quality scale.
This article has a map. If the map has an error, please work with the maps task force to correct it.
This article has been recognized in the following venues:
Updated DYK query.svg
A fact from this article was featured on the Did you know? section of the U.S. Roads Portal in August 2008.
WikiProject New Jersey (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Citations needed[edit]

Please add more citations to the article. If no reliable sources are found I will request a GA review. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it all.Strangely it only needed 2 types, the SLD and the book I got info from.Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 22:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not strange. That just shows that there isn't enough information and it does need more references. Primarily, you just use a map and a book none of us can access. It needs more information. Have you searched online for more history of the road? When was it first built? Why was it built? How much money? Did it ever have a different route? Is there anything notable about the route? Is it the shortest county route, perhaps, in the county? Have any severe automobile accidents occurred there? Is it all just one lane each way? When was the light on it built? Was there ever a proposal for another light? Another lane? Extending the route? Are there traffic counts for the road? Metric units are needed. For these reasons, I've delisted it as a GA. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is some answers:
  1. When was it first built? - Before 1888 -all i know.
  2. Is it all just one lane each way? 1 north, 1 south.
  3. Is it the shortest county route, perhaps, in the county? No. 692, 807, 661, 663, 691, 693, 701, 702, 694-699, 690, 688, 685, 680, and many more.
  4. Why was it built? To me a connector route to Woodbridge Avenue and Lincoln Highway.
  5. Was there ever a proposal for another light? Yes and now mentioned.
  6. Extending the route? No
  7. Are there traffic counts for the road? Its a speeding disaster.
  8. Have any severe automobile accidents occurred there? Since living at MP .55 on 676, I have seen 3-5 car accidents, but none fatal. And Jun Choi's plans never mentioned a fatal one.
  9. Have you searched online for more history of the road? As you can see yes.
  10. Did it ever have a different route? Nope.
  11. Another lane? Doubt it

Mitchazenia(8300+edits) 01:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean that those would be good things to put in the article, with sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination #2[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

There are still a number of problems with this article, but they may be minor enough to fix quickly in time to pass. The prose definitely still needs some work. A lot of it still isn't written in an encylcopedic tone. For example, "The Riverview Avenue part of CR 676 is the second shortest part of the route and the farthest south, lasting only 0.19 miles with four small intersections." You generally wouldn't hear someone refer to the "Riverview Avenue part" of a route, and the phrase "four small intersections" could be corrected simply by changing the word "small" to "minor". I suggest someone other than the major contributor going through the article to perform copyedits. (In addition to tone, the references are inconsistently placed, with missing spaces and the like.)

There are still some problem with references. One of them is the opposite problem the article had before. It's probably not necessary to cite the SLD 18 different times, as much of them aren't "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". That being said, there are a select few sentences that probably need to be removed and/or cited.

I think the major problem with this article that may prevent it from being a good article is being "broad in its coverage". A lot of the route description section seems to just be transcribed from maps and/or the SLD. The major problem though, is the history section. When you read it carefully, you realize that it doesn't say anything about the history of County Route 676. It's all about the history of Duclos Lane, which is just one section of the route. When did the road become a county highway? Did it have a different number before Middlesex County adopted 600-series numbers? Was it all commissioned at the same time, or were some sections added to the route at a later date?

I think in order to be a good article, it needs to have far more information on the history of the route, rather than the road.

Finally, as a very minor thing with the images, the two photographs should be cropped to eliminate the black background visible around the edges. -- NORTH talk 03:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Article looks pretty good. Here a few minor things to fix:

1. The first sentence of the second paragraph doesn't make any sense.
Fixed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
2. Cite the second paragraph of the lead.
Per WP:LEAD, information in the lead that is referenced in the main article doesn't have to be sourced. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
3. There are phrases like "intersecting with Harrigan Street at .05 of a mile" throughout the article. It should be "intersecting with Harrigan Street after .05 miles" or something similar.
"After" would imply that the intersection occurs past .05 miles, which is incorrect; the intersection occurs at that milepost. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
4. The map looks irrelevant. If you don't have a map for the road, just put the shield there. The map isn't required for a good article.
What's wrong with it? It highlights the road in red. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
5. The last sentence of the first section under route description needs clarified. It says "An average of 8,061 people traveled this section of CR 676 in 2001." Is this average per day? per week? You might even be able to remove that line since 2001 is pretty long ago.
Removed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
6. The Woodbridge Avenue section is not very clear.
I tried to clarify it some. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Deigo (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies are above. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand the end of the Woodbridge Avenue section. Regarding the map, I didn't see it at first. For the history section, I think it needs a date that it was designated. Deigo (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My input was requested, so a few things that I noticed were:

  1. A left-aligned image under the "Woodbridge Avenue (Mileposts 0.20–0.24)" header
  2. Parentheses inside parentheses in "(the latter, Franklin Street, located at .38 miles (.61 kilometres))." - since the second set is for a conversion, it should be kept for consistency. Can the other part be worked into the sentence without parentheses?
  3. "100 feet after due to no shoulder exists" - awkward phrasing
  4. References 9 and 10 should use "Retrieved on" instead of "accessed on" for consistency, and both should end with a period.
  5. As for the Woodbridge Avenue section, the only problem I see is the awkward phrasing in the last line, which I found hard to understand.

I hope this helps, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Done with everything. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

PASS Deigo (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

USRD GA audit[edit]

This article has failed the USRD GA audit and will be sent to WP:GAR if the issues are not resolved within one week. Please see WT:USRD for more details, and please ask me if you have any questions as to why this article failed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)